Find or Sell Used Cars, Trucks, and SUVs in USA

2009 Ford Expedition El Ssv 4wd Black On Black 2nd Row Quad Seats Clean!! on 2040-cars

US $17,985.00
Year:2009 Mileage:100501 Color: Black /
 Black
Location:

Addison, Texas, United States

Addison, Texas, United States
Transmission:Automatic
Vehicle Title:Clear
For Sale By:Dealer
Engine:5.4L 330Cu. In. V8 FLEX SOHC Naturally Aspirated
Body Type:Sport Utility
Fuel Type:FLEX
VIN: 1fmfk16579eb10634 Year: 2009
Make: Ford
Model: Expedition
Trim: EL XLT Sport Utility 4-Door
Disability Equipped: No
Doors: 4
Drive Type: 4WD
Drivetrain: Four Wheel Drive
Mileage: 100,501
Sub Model: SSV
Number of Cylinders: 8
Exterior Color: Black
Interior Color: Black
Condition: Used: A vehicle is considered used if it has been registered and issued a title. Used vehicles have had at least one previous owner. The condition of the exterior, interior and engine can vary depending on the vehicle's history. See the seller's listing for full details and description of any imperfections. ... 

Auto Services in Texas

Wolfe Automotive ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Parts & Supplies, Automobile Accessories
Address: 110 W King St, Burleson
Phone: (817) 295-6691

Williams Transmissions ★★★★★

Automobile Parts & Supplies, Auto Transmission
Address: 1105 N Mirror St, Amarillo
Phone: (806) 356-0585

White And Company ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Automobile Body Repairing & Painting
Address: 1157 S Burleson Blvd, Venus
Phone: (817) 295-0098

West End Transmissions ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Auto Transmission, Automobile Parts, Supplies & Accessories-Wholesale & Manufacturers
Address: 12654 Old Dallas Rd, Bellmead
Phone: (254) 826-3296

Wallisville Auto Repair ★★★★★

Auto Repair & Service, Auto Transmission, Brake Repair
Address: 14611 Wallisville Rd, Highlands
Phone: (281) 458-5033

VW Of Temple ★★★★★

New Car Dealers
Address: 5620 S General Bruce Dr, Heidenheimer
Phone: (254) 773-4634

Auto blog

Report: GM struggling to market turbo technology

Tue, 20 Apr 2010

In the automotive realm, marketing can sometimes prove just as important as the actual product. Take, for instance, Ford's well regarded EcoBoost technology, which couples turbocharging with direct injection to produce more horsepower and reduce fuel consumption. Would it surprise you to hear that General Motors has had similar technology on the market for over three years?
It's true. GM's first turbocharged, direct injected powerplants hit the market for the 2007 model. The 2.0-liter Ecotec mills put down an impressive 260 horsepower and a matching 260 pound-feet of torque, and they were lauded by the press in the engine bays of the Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Sky, Chevrolet Cobalt SS and Chevrolet HHR SS. But few people outside a core group of enthusiasts actually remember this fact.
Says Uwe Grebe, executive director of GM's global advanced engineering, "We didn't have a badge and say, 'This is the most important thing we will put on all our brochures.'" Ford, however, did just that, and it's EcoBoost engines are right at the tips of all our tongues when we discuss today's most advanced powerplants. So, how does The General fix its mistake?

And the Top Gear UK Cars of the Year for 2013 are...

Tue, 17 Dec 2013

Those loony Brits at Top Gear have named their Car of the Year, and if you're thinking it's the McLaren P1, Jaguar F-Type, Land Rover Range Rover Sport or Rolls-Royce Wraith, we're sorry to inform you that none of those Anglo automobiles earned the crown. In fact, the winner of Top Gear's most prestigious award is quite the surprise.
Of course, those cars weren't without their own awards. The P1 was the top hypercar (sorry, Porsche 918 and Ferrari LaFerrari), while the F-Type netted best convertible and the Range Rover Sport was voted SUV of the Year. Other honorable mentions included the Mercedes-Benz SLS AMG Black and S-Class, the Porsche 911 GT3, the BMW i3 and the Ferrari 458 Speciale. The winner, though, wasn't even a high-dollar supercar. It was the Ford Fiesta ST.
Yes, the Fiesta ST beat out some off-the-wall cars like the revolutionary Volkswagen XL1 and the bonkers Peugeot 208 T16 Pikes Peak, not to mention all the cars we listed above, to take the title of Top Gear Car of the Year. And if you've driven one, you'll completely understand why.

Ford made three big mistakes in calculating MPG for 2013 C-Max Hybrid

Tue, Jun 17 2014

It's been a rough time for the official fuel economy figures for the Ford C-Max Hybrid. When the car was released in 2012, Ford made a huge deal about how it would beat the Toyota Prius V, which was rated at 42 combined miles per gallon, 44 city and 40 highway. The Ford? 47 mpg across the board. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? Well, after hearing customer complaints and issuing a software update in mid-2013, then discovering a real problem with the numbers last fall and then making a big announcement last week that the fuel economy ratings of six different 2013 and 2014 model year vehicles would need to be lowered, the C-Max Hybrid has ended up at 40 combined, 42 city and 37 highway. In other words, the Prius trumps it, as daily drivers of those two vehicles have known for a long time. The changes will not only affect the window sticker, but also the effect that the C-Max Hybrid (and the five other Ford vehicles that had their fuel economy figures lowered last week) have on Ford's compliance with greenhouse gas and CAFE rules for model year 2013 and 2014. How did Ford come to this place, where its Prius-beater turned into an also-ran? There are two technical answers to that question, which we've got below, as well as some context for how Ford's mistakes will play out in the bigger world of green vehicles. Let's start with Ford's second error, which is easy to do since we documented it in detail last year (the first, needing to do a software update, was also covered). The basic gist is that Ford used the general label rule (completely legally) to test the Fusion Hybrid and use those numbers to figure out how efficient the C-Max Hybrid is. That turned out to be a mistake, since the two vehicles are different enough that their numbers were not comparable, despite having the same engine, transmission and test weight, as the rules require. You can read more details here. Ford's Said Deep admitted that the TRLHP issue is completely separate from the general label error from last year. Now let's move on to last week's announcement. What's interesting is that the new recalculation of the MPG numbers – downward, of course – was caused by a completely separate issue, something called the Total Road Load Horsepower (TRLHP). Ford's Said Deep admitted to AutoblogGreen that the TRLHP issue had nothing to do with the general label error from last year.